Purpose: There can be many negative effects from a disruption in a central node of companies' supply chains, such as a port conflict that reduces capacity. Strategies for disruption management include flexibility and redundancy. This paper aims to analyse a supply chain disruption from flexibility and capacity perspectives.Design/methodology/approach: A case study was conducted of the supply chain disruption caused by the port conflict in 2016–2017 in Gothenburg, in which the port operated at a reduced capacity. Companies importing and exporting goods, freight forwarders, hauliers, train operators, ports, shipping companies and their agents were interviewed.Findings: Various capacity problems (ports, links, container chassis, empty containers) were encountered due to the port conflict. Flexibility measures such as node, mode and fleet flexibility can be used in response to changes in capacity. Difficulties with applying flexibility are discussed.Research limitations/implications: Although based on a Swedish case, findings are relevant for disruptions or other types of disturbances in ports elsewhere and also in other important nodes in companies' supply chains.Practical implications: Actors influenced by disturbances in a port can increase their understanding of potential capacity problems and flexibility measures. Readiness and timely action are important due to competition regarding capacity.Originality/value: The implications on the transport network surrounding a port, including many actors, are explained, illustrating how capacity problems propagate, but there is some flexibility to manage the problems.

This paper assesses the impact of a major disruptive event at the port of Gothenburg, Scandinavia’s largest container port. Automatic Identification System (AIS) data is analyzed, in combination with official port statistics on container handling in the four main container ports in Sweden, from 2014–2018. Particular attention is paid to the relationship between container volumes handled and calculated performance metrics at the specific times of the intense labour dispute at the port of Gothenburg during the periods Q2 (2016) and Q4 (2016)–Q2 (2017). The paper concludes that the decline in container volumes handled at Gothenburg over the period is specifically due to fewer ships calling at the port following each of the intense periods of the labour dispute. It is also concluded that the effect on competitor ports in the region were significant in terms of both increased volumes of gateway container traffic and the resulting short-term and medium term impacts on both port user profiles and port efficiency levels.

Purpose: Rigor and practical relevance are the foundations for logistics and supply chain management (LSCM) as an applied discipline. Whereas there are well-founded criteria for establishing methodological rigor, researchers must provide their own credible logic as to why their papers can influence practice. Accordingly, this paper aims to develop guidelines for establishing practical relevance in research papers.Design/methodology/approach: A literature review of LSCM, marketing, operations management and management journals forms the foundation for these guidelines.Findings: Relevance criteria are identified; research should be problem-driven, timely and important, and findings should be implementable, nonobvious, novel and not too costly. Measures for researchers demonstrating the fulfillment of these criteria are identified as practitioner input, gray literature, funding, practitioner involvement and feedback. Researchers should also clearly articulate both problem relevance and the relevance of their findings.Research limitations/implications: A lack of practical relevance is among the reasons for the rejection of papers by LSCM journals, but researchers can overcome this obstacle using these guidelines.Practical implications: At a metalevel, this paper contributes to research with greater practical relevance.Originality/value: Practical relevance is emphasized in the editorials of LSCM journals but has not yet been fully conceptualized from the authors' perspective.

Purpose: Severe disruptions to maritime supply chains, including port closures, congestion and shortages in shipping capacity, have occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. This paper’s purpose is to explore flexibility-based countermeasures that enable actors in maritime supply chains to mitigate the effects of disruptions with different characteristics.Design/methodology/approach: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with shipping lines, shippers, forwarders and ports. Data on the COVID-19 pandemic's effects and countermeasures were collected and compared with data regarding the 2016–2017 Gothenburg port conflict.Findings: Spatial, capacity, service and temporal flexibility emerged as the primary countermeasures, whilst important characteristics of disruptions were geographical spread, duration, uncertainty, criticality, the element of surprise and intensity. Spatial flexibility was exercised in both disruptions by switching to alternative ports. During the COVID-19 pandemic, ensuring capacity flexibility included first removing and then adding vessels. Shipping lines exercising service flexibility prioritised certain cargo, which made the spot market uncertain and reduced flexibility for forwarders, importers and exporters that changed carriers or traffic modes. Experience with disruptions meant less surprise and better preparation for spatial flexibility.Practical implications: Understanding how actors in maritime supply chains exercise flexibility-based countermeasures amid disruptions with different characteristics can support preparedness for coming disruptions.Originality/value: Comparing flexibility-based measures in a pandemic versus port conflict provides insights into the important characteristics of disruptions and the relevance of mitigation strategies. The resilience of maritime supply chains, although underexamined compared with manufacturing supply chains, is essential for maintaining global supply chain flows.